^^^ THIS has been my hesitation/concern all along, too!^^ As others have pointed out though, there seems to be some sort of disconnect between the geometry numbers that we know about, the clearances cited, the height recommendations given, and extrapolation from all other Rivendell models we know about. In the end, I just decided to put down the money, take a chance, assume it will work better than the numbers suggest, and hope for the best. I think that particular stand-over height number HAS to be lower than cited. Or some other aspect of the bike will make it not matter. If I'm wrong, then I can sell the frame easy enough. They'll be worth $850 soon enough ;-)
One reason that particular 34.75" number doesn't jive to me, is that it's higher than any of my three even-larger (60cm) Rivendell road-ish bikes. Obviously, basing it on the "fattest tires that fits" has something to do with that fact, but that's what I (all of us?) do on the other frames as well - so I'm still comparing apples to apples. Like you but even shorter, I have no clearance to spare on those frames. Otherwise, there would seem to just be a big "hole" in the sizing, that you and I ...and probably anyone between 6' and 6'-3"... would fall into. Meanwhile, I know for certain that a 52 wouldn't fit me. I have a 52cm MB-1 which, even with a presumably much higher bottom bracket and steeper seat tube angle than the Clem, is still WAY too small for me. (Despite the fact that it was the "right" size for me in the early 90s and that I rode it forever without knowing better.) So the 52 would be even worse for you or anyone taller than me. If there indeed is a hole in sizing, I could understand why it happened. Each of the three sizes was obviously based on the three wheel sizes, and proportioned accordingly. (By the way, they have moved the order of the photos around on the website, so it's easier to toggle between the three elevation/side shots, and compare how the proportions change.) But the biggest disconnect for me, and cause for hope that it will work better than the numbers suggest, is the fact that this particular range of 6' - 6'-3" (of which I fall exactly in the middle) happens to be the *exact* range of rider heights recommended! It's going to be questionable for me, but I still can't help but think the size has to be almost *perfect* for you. On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 4:42:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Daume wrote: > I was getting somewhat close to putting the money down for a 59cm Clem, > until I checked the geo chart and saw that it had a 34.75" standover > height. At 6'3" with a 91cm PBH, I already find my 62cm Cross Check taller > than what I want for around town riding, and it's a touch less than 34" in > standover height. When I've tried to use my CC as my kid puller/around town > bike, I quickly got tired of how close everything was at every stop (and > there are a LOT of stops when riding with kids). Nearly 35" is a deal > breaker. > > All of this is a very roundabout way of saying to be careful about how > tall an even bigger Clem would get. > > Of course, there's the Clementine, but that frame design has zero appeal > for me (while the broadly similar Cheviot looks pretty good, go figure). > > Eric > Dublin, OH > > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Garth <gart...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> >> Yes Matt, is does *appear *longer , even by measuring the full image >> with a ruler onscreen where it definitely IS longer. So there seems to be >> direct contradiction here, with Keven's info and the image shown, which >> should be noted is only a prototype. The production frames are non-existent >> as of now . The pre-sale from the Blug info appears to be a pre pre-sale >> even, earlier than they had planned or wanted but they need some cash . >> >> It does not appear though, to be any higher front end than what Keven >> said though, so to have an overly long TT and not a proportionately higher >> head tube seems like it would be a bit odd . Again , it's not until final >> specs are officially confirmed does any of this matter ! We're all >> talking about Pie in the Sky, it looks great but you can't have it. >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 5:31:56 PM UTC-4, Matt B. wrote: >>> >>> I'm sure the final geometry is probably still in the works but the top >>> tube on the prototype 59cm on the blug definitely looks longer than >>> 61cm. It looks like it's about ~63cm actual, and maybe ~65cm horizontal. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 9:12:25 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I had some questions about the Clem for Keven about the 59cm. Clem >>>> that he graciously answered for me and thought I'd pass them along . >>>> >>>> 1. The head/front end(top of the head tube) on the Clem is "virtually >>>> identical" in height as my 60cm. Bombadil . >>>> 2. The top tube is "61cm-ish" . That's 2cm. shorter than the Bomba , >>>> :( . (Too short for me,, boo-hoo , lol ) >>>> 3. The head and seat angles he as not positive on, likely the same as >>>> the Bomba , which is a 72 ST and 71 HT. >>>> 4. In regards to number one, to get the highest bars, the steering tube >>>> is always left as long as possible ! >>>> 5. The BB and headset are likely Tange's . >>>> 6. If you want a different front cable hanger, you can buy one >>>> separately for it . I assume he meant the would install it in place of >>>> the >>>> stock one. >>>> >>>> >>>> And he welcomes questions, which is awesome ! ! >>>> >>>> Oh yes ... he also added this : "* Grant is making noise about >>>>> creating a 64cm Clementine which would have a bigger headtube (higher >>>>> handlebars) than your Bombadil and the 59cm Clem's, so that might be >>>>> worth >>>>> waiting for/ signing up for. Not sure if it will be included with the >>>>> first shipment*." >>>> >>>> >>>> So there just *may *be a 64cm Clementine ! Which I'd love as a top >>>> tube on a Clem would be close to my max clearance wise . I always wanted >>>> a >>>> Betty or something like it in the past but it was always just not quite >>>> tall/long enough for me , so this solves all that :) Yeah ! >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
